Islamic Group Calls for Use of Koran to Take Oath

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Funny, I don't see any accusations of bigotry thrown at whoha, either by loinburger or by Boris. I wonder why that is.

Whoha hasn't brought in attacks on Muslim countries, nor espoused forcing Muslims to swear on the bible. You have. Moreover, you have a long history of bigotry. Whoha's comment just deserved a Your comments strike a more serious double standard to me.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Funny, I don't see any accusations of bigotry thrown at whoha, either by loinburger or by Boris. I wonder why that is.

Don't be an ass. Whoha made a single one-line post saying that Islam should be kept out of the legal system. You've gone into multiple diatribes expressing the inferiority of all muslims and/or your superiority to all muslims. Don't try to drag Whoha down to your level.

[Ben Kenobi]

Moreover, you have a long history of bigotry.

I used to live with two muslims, one practicing, and one who was not. The non-practicing one kept trying to tell me that the Jews were the source of evil in the world, and had many complaints about his treatment in Canada by the evil Jews.

I got along with the practicing Muslim though. He was a nice fellow.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


True, but that doesn't mean pharmacists are required to stock it in the first place. Pharmacies are businesses, even though they are stringently regulated in what they can provide, I don't believe they are required to stock everything that they are allowed to prescribe.

Of course they are. It's the whole purpose of pharmacies - to deliver drugs to ordinary poeple. They may not have it in stock if it's rarely used, but they are supposed to get it and deliver without delay.

For the reasons I have stated above. Introducing the Koran also introduces new problems in terms of equal treatment that are not currently present.

Of course it dosn't introduce new problems - it's just another book. Well, practically, you may have a point since that would mean that every court should have a rather big library of "holy books" - if that should be a problem, they could just have a book with blank pages and the oath could be someyhing like "I swear at this book with blank pages representing my version of a holy book..." - or more sane - totally drop the swearing to any kind of book or paper (constitution incl) and just be "I swear to 'whatever is my high values of life' that I will speak truth". That would at least be honest.

[Ben Kenobi]

You've gone into multiple diatribes expressing the inferiority of all muslims and/or your superiority to all muslims. Don't try to drag Whoha down to your level.

Wow, that's quite a bit that you infer from the use of the word 'they'. In case you haven't noticed, I have, in several other posts stopped tarring them all with the same brush, and acknowledged those Muslims who are willing to obey western laws, and who are rather more moderate than the more fundamentalists.

In fact, I have even expressed my delight in working with Muslims, since they sit on the same side of the fence as I do on issues such as abortion and family values. They also don't drink, which agrees well with me too.

The only problem I have is with all the Muslims who beat and kill Christians. That puts a wee bit of a damper on our relationship.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

The only problem I have is with all the Muslims who beat and kill Christians. That puts a wee bit of a damper on our relationship.

Ouch, you just did it one more time

[Ben Kenobi]

Of course they are. It's the whole purpose of pharmacies - to deliver drugs to ordinary poeple. They may not have it in stock if it's rarely used, but they are supposed to get it and deliver without delay.

It costs them money to stock and to be able to supply rare drugs. I don't see all pharmacists being required to deliver all drugs to people, rather I would think that they would supply the drugs that do sell well, and make them money. They are not a public service, they are a business.

Secondly, the decision not to supply the morning after pill, is entirely a decision of the pharmacist. I don't see any compelling public need for the drug.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Jeez, are people arguing about this? The answer is simple, you either let every religion swear on their Holy Book (accomodationalist view) or no one (seperationist view). To do otherwise is violating the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment (and in a clear cut case as well).

Oh, and Ben Kenobi is a prat (which nobody can deny..) .

[Ben Kenobi]

So that's where pratfalls come from.

I still don't think that if the state requires everyone, regardless of their religious affiliation, to swear on the bible that this is a violation of the establishment clause.

After all, you are assuming that the bible represents one religion.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Jeez, are people arguing about this?

This is the Apolyton OT - you are supposed to do it

[Imran Siddiqui]

I still don't think that if the state requires everyone, regardless of their religious affiliation, to swear on the bible that this is a violation of the establishment clause.

Oh yes it is! It's a clear cut violation of the Establishment Clause. According to the Agostini test, the government here violates their requirement to not advance or inhibit religion (they advance Judeo-Christian religions and inhibit Muslims religion in the courtroom).

It's a 9-0 case, Ben. No contest.

After all, you are assuming that the bible represents one religion.

Um... it doesn't matter. You have no clue about the Establishment Clause, it is clear.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I still don't think that if the state requires everyone, regardless of their religious affiliation, to swear on the bible that this is a violation of the establishment clause.

It might not be a violation if the law made everyone swear on the bible. There is no question that it is a violation if the law makes everyone swear on a holy book, and then goes on to say that the bible is the only acceptable holy book. In the former case the intent is a bit ambiguous -- in the latter case the intent is clear as day.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well, for starters, I don't try to shoot Muslims, and I don't go out of my way to harrass them, or kill them, as what happens to Christians in most Muslim countries who dare to practice their religion openly.

I don't see why it is offensive for me to go and say that because I refrain from doing any of these things, that then I have more respect for their religion then they do for mine.

What Muslims here are trying to shoot you, harrass you or kill you? This isn't about what's happening in those countries--it's about what's happening here. As loinburger points out, you're tarring all Muslims based on what fundamentalist Muslims do halfway across the world in staunchly different cultures. The association is unwarranted, since such attitudes aren't typical of Muslims here.

You may have more respect for Muslims than the Taliban would have for you, but otherwise you're definitely on the "less respectful" end of the scale.

As for what Whoha said:

Islam should be kept as far away from our legal system as possible.

That's not necessarily a bigoted statement, and isn't remotely the same as what YOU said. I wholeheartedly agree with him--of course, that's because we're a secular country, and EVERY religion should be kept out of our legal system, be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or whatever.

But Whoha didn't state he wouldn't trust Muslims, nor did trumpet his own superiority to them in the respect department.

Now, I'd like to point out to everyone that in two previous threads, Ben has whinged ferociously about a supposed claim I made that all Christians were tarred by the nuts who shot abortion doctors or bombed clinics (I wasn't actually claiming that, but that's besides the point, except that he continues to claim I did, showing he's dishonest). But here he is tarring U.S. Muslims with the bad behavior of the fundies across the seas, as if that meant all Muslims treated Christians the same way.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
After all, you are assuming that the bible represents one religion.

What other religion does it represent, in the form it's used (with the NT)?

The bible is used as a religious book, hence the part of the oath that says "so help me God", and the bible in it's entirity represents only Christianity.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by loinburger
It might not be a violation if the law made everyone swear on the bible. There is no question that it is a violation if the law makes everyone swear on a holy book, and then goes on to say that the bible is the only acceptable holy book. In the former case the intent is a bit ambiguous -- in the latter case the intent is clear as day.

The only way it wouldn't be a violation for everyone to swear on the Bible if they could show that there was a looong line of practice with no exceptions made, so that it became a civil ritual with no connection to religion at all.

Doesn't work because they've made exceptions for atheists among others.